SACRAMENTO, CA – A yearlong investigation by the Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reform has culminated in a new report detailing systemic permitting challenges that are delaying critical infrastructure projects across California.
The report, released on Tuesday, outlines key inefficiencies that slow down the construction of housing, clean energy, water infrastructure, and transportation projects—ultimately driving up costs for everyday Californians.
“It is too damn hard to build anything in California,” said Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who chairs the committee. “Our broken permitting system is driving up the cost of housing, the cost of energy, and even the cost of inaction on climate change. If we’re serious about making California more affordable, sustainable, and resilient, we have to make it easier to build housing, clean energy, public transportation, and climate adaptation projects. This report makes it clear: the system isn’t working, and it’s on us to fix it.”
The report provides a comprehensive analysis of how permitting delays and inefficiencies impact the state’s most pressing challenges, from the housing crisis to clean energy deployment. It identifies best practices and potential reforms that could accelerate project timelines, increase transparency, and reduce costs—ultimately making California a leader in infrastructure development rather than a cautionary tale of bureaucratic gridlock.
The Select Committee’s findings, based on four public hearings, site visits across the state, and engagement with more than 100 stakeholder organizations, confirm that California’s permitting system is not only inefficient but actively obstructs progress.
The report outlines how permitting bottlenecks impact four critical sectors:
- Housing: California needs to build 310,000 new homes per year to meet demand, but currently produces only one-third of that target. Local permitting processes frustrate approvals at every step, and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reviews often impede even climate-friendly infill housing projects.
- Clean Energy: To reach its net-zero climate goals, California must triple its deployment of solar, wind, and battery storage while expanding transmission lines by $43-$63 billion. Yet, the average approval time for a new transmission line is 10 years, making it nearly impossible for the state to meet its ambitious targets.
- Water Infrastructure: As California faces droughts, floods, and rising sea levels, critical water infrastructure projects require multiple agency approvals, delaying life-saving initiatives by years.
- Transportation: The state must increase public transit, biking, and pedestrian travel from 13% to 23% of all trips to meet climate goals. However, permitting delays for sustainable transportation projects add years to approval timelines, while highway expansion projects face fewer barriers.
“California has the technology, investment, and workforce to lead the nation in clean energy — but our outdated permitting system is standing in the way,” said Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine). “The findings in this report underscore the urgent need for reform so we can build the infrastructure required for a reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy future.”
The report has drawn widespread support from both lawmakers and industry leaders, with a clear consensus that California must modernize its permitting processes to stay competitive and meet its climate and housing goals.
“California has always led the way on clean energy and tackling the big challenges of our time. If we want to meet our ambitious climate goals, we have to build faster and smarter,” said Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton). “That means cutting through the red tape that holds back the clean energy projects our communities need.”
Assemblymember Juan Carrillo (D-Palmdale) echoed the urgency: “We need to get back to rebuilding California. All over the state, we see our housing, our infrastructure, our schools either crumbling, or desperately over capacity, or both. I am grateful that Assemblymember Wicks took on this project, and now I am ready to get to work.”
Stakeholders across multiple sectors have expressed support for the Select Committee’s findings, calling for immediate legislative and regulatory reforms.
“California cannot build the future if our infrastructure is stuck in the past,” said Laura Tolkoff, Transportation Policy Director for SPUR. “This is a timely set of ideas that can help the talented and committed people working in government to do what they came to do—serve the collective good.”
Shannon Eddy, Executive Director of the Large-Scale Solar Association, emphasized the urgency of reforming the permitting process for clean energy projects.
“The findings in this white paper reflect the reality our industry experiences every day: permitting delays and complications drive up costs, stall critical clean energy projects, and hinder California’s ability to meet its climate and reliability goals.”
Karim Drissi, Senior Vice President of Legislative Affairs at the California Building Industry Association (CBIA), highlighted the impact of permitting challenges on the housing crisis.
“Overcoming barriers to building more housing requires continued decisive action. CBIA looks forward to working with the Legislature to advance policy solutions that bolster housing production, making homes more attainable for California families.”
Experts from the University of California, Stanford, and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab also weighed in, emphasizing the need for a modernized permitting process that embraces digital tools, stronger agency collaboration, and proactive planning.
The Select Committee on Permitting Reform is now focusing on legislative and regulatory change in 2025. This push includes: Reducing permitting timelines across all infrastructure sectors. Streamlining multi-agency approvals for housing, clean energy, water, and transportation projects. Creating more transparent and predictable permitting processes to lower costs and improve efficiency. Ensuring California’s permitting laws align with its ambitious climate and housing goals.
“To build the affordable housing California desperately needs and make critical investments in clean energy and transportation infrastructure, we must rein in the many-headed hydra of out-of-control permitting,” said Jim Wunderman, President and CEO of the Bay Area Council. “The work Assemblymember Buffy Wicks is leading to reform California’s onerous, excessive, and expensive permitting processes will make it easier, faster, and less costly to build and invest in solutions to our biggest challenges.”
The Select Committee’s report lays the groundwork for critical changes, and as Assemblymember Wicks made clear, the time to act is now. “We can’t afford the status quo. The cost of inaction is too high. We have the opportunity—and the responsibility—to fix this broken system.”
For more details, the full report is available at https://a14.asmdc.org/select-committee-permitting-reform.
From article: “California’s permitting system is not only inefficient but actively obstructs progress.”
And there, in a nutshell, is the “actual” problem. (In other words, their definition and resulting pursuit of “progress”.)
Clearly if you want the system to obstruct, it works very well. So duh.
I’d like them to acknowledge that California isn’t growing anymore, but that’s what they’re actually not happy about.
They don’t want a stable population.
I’ve argue previously that California has resumed growth in the last year and that growth is not the most important metric for aligning housing with need. I fear that will drive us into another rabbit hole, but to your point, no one is going to acknowledge something they fundamentally disagree with.
” . . . no one is going to acknowledge something they fundamentally disagree with.”
This is actually a miscalculation, by those pushing growth. (Perhaps it’s a “purposeful” miscalculation.)
There is a fundamental disconnect between politicians, and what the populace (individual communities) actually want.
You can see this occurring in regard to “California Forever”, as well.
“This city wants to expand. Critics worry it’s how California Forever will take root”
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/suisun-city-california-forever-solano-county-20053951.php
You can also see this in regard to what’s already occurring throughout the region (e.g., the valley that’s now being developed between Vacaville and Fairfield). There was a group trying to stop it – they were ignored.
You can also see it in just about every community across the state, in regard to the state’s “mandates”.
I understand your perspective, I don’t share it and neither do they.
As I just noted, it’s not just “my” perspective. The chasm is between “they” and the populace they represent. The reason this occurs is because politicians need to be connected to interest groups, in order to be elected. (This is why voters don’t actually have a real choice in regard to who actually appears on the ballot.)
This is also the reason we hear about a “housing shortage” (a fake one, at that).
Who shares your perspective?
I just provided several examples above (e.g., communities fighting the state’s mandates, a powerful group fighting “California Forever”, those who were fighting the development in the valley between Vacaville and Fairfield, etc.)
I witnessed the land preservation movement in the Bay Area going back decades, at this point.
I’m asking for a specific name or link.
And locally, those who vote against every single peripheral housing development proposal, whom you’ve complained about in the past.
As far as links are concerned, you already have some of them – since you’ve written articles about communities (like Huntington Beach) which have launched lawsuits against the state.
Then there’s groups/organizations like SOAR (whom you’ve also complained about), Livable California, Greenbelt Alliance (which is opposed to California Forever), a Facebook page called “California Forenever”, etc.
There’s urban growth boundaries throughout the Bay Area which are routinely re-approved by voters, as well as multiple/many land preservation groups (for both farming and open space).
I would say that I’m not aware of a “singular” effort to fight the state – it’s occurs on an individual community basis (other than groups like Livable California). And that’s part of the problem – communities aren’t yet banding together.
The lack of cohesion is also the reason that they’re vulnerable to challenges from organized, funded statewide YIMBY groups and the politicians they support.
There’s also not a singular vision (e.g., some groups support infill, or at least claim to do so).
I would be interested in a link that represents your perspective. Or the name of a person you agree with.
David, I already provided it. Let me name them for you again:
Huntington Beach (and every other city that has challenged the state’s mandates)
California Forenever
Greenbelt Alliance
Livable California
SOAR
Those who have voted against peripheral development (not an organized group, so they don’t have a link)
Do you really need for me to find those links for you, or do you know how to do so yourself? Especially since you’ve written articles about them?
For example, here’s an article I agree with: link.
No problem: Here’s a university study (the third time I’ve referenced it over the past week, so you must not be listening:
https://news.ku.edu/news/article/study-finds-us-does-not-have-housing-shortage-but-shortage-of-affordable-housing
Here’s another one:
https://dadisfire.com/housing-is-affordable/
There’s also well-known real estate investors on YouTube who are now noting that there is no actual housing shortage. I can find those if you’d like – I just watched one last night.)
Ron references 2 articles that are not California specific. Real estate investors are different than actual housing experts.
Here is a Calmatters article updated on 1/16/25 that says there is an overall housing shortage in California and not just with affordable housing.
California just doesn’t have enough housing to keep up with demand. The difference between the number of homes we need and the number we’ve been building has been growing for decades.
The gap is starting to shrink. But very, very slowly.
Population has essentially broken even over the last decade, while the state experienced a modest building boom in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of 2024, there are more homes per person — 3,789 units for every 10,000 Californians — than there have been since at least 1991.
But the picture might be less encouraging than those numbers suggest.
The number of people living in each home has been on a long-term decline across the country, a trend turbo charged during the pandemic. That makes the number of homes that the state needs to build to keep up with demand a moving target. And however you define the size of the state’s housing shortage, we’re nowhere close to closing it.
https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-housing-costs-explainer/
Walter: The University of Kansas study examined the entire country (including California):
“The researchers found only four of the nation’s 381 metropolitan areas experienced a housing shortage in the study time frame, as did only 19 of the country’s 526 “micropolitan” areas — those with 10,000-50,000 residents.”